Delete an achievement (admin)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds that the delete is 'soft-delete' and advises 'prefer staging', which provides behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second provides critical usage warnings. No unnecessary words; every sentence is functional.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With destructiveHint and openWorldHint annotations present, the description covers the core functionality and safety precautions. It lacks details on the 'soft-delete' behavior (e.g., reversibility) and the meaning of projectId, but for a delete tool with annotations, it is fairly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67% (2 of 3 parameters described). The description adds meaning by connecting kind values ('task' vs group kinds) and refs ('slugs/names/ids'). The projectId parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, but overall the description adds value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool soft-deletes a single task or a group, specifying the kinds (task, mission, step_series, time_series) and what refs to provide (slugs/names/ids). It distinguishes from siblings like create, edit, and list tools by using the verb 'delete' and the resource 'achievement'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance: 'DESTRUCTIVE — confirm with the user first, and prefer staging.' This tells the agent when to use it (only with confirmation, possibly in staging) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. However, for a delete tool, this is clear and actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.